Human Rights Council Advisory Committee
Human Rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations
QUESTIONNAIRE
as part of the consultations undertaken by the Human Rights Council Advisory
Committee with National Human Rights Institutions with a view to preparing a
research-based report on best practices and main challenges in the promotion and
protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations, pursuant to
Council resolution 22/16.
Background:
Recognizing the need for a human rights-based approach to the delivery of humanitarian assistance
and taking note of the Advisory Committee’s research proposal submitted to the Human Rights
Council1, the Council, in its resolution 22/16, mandated the Advisory Committee to prepare a
research-based report on best practices and main challenges in the promotion and protection of human
rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations, to foster the capacity of States in such efforts and
which would have to be presented on the Council’s twenty-eighth session (March 2015).
It is therefore in this context that the Advisory Committee decided, at its eleventh session held in
August 2013, to appoint a drafting group2 in charge of the preparation of this report. The drafting
group will present a progress report at the twelfth session of the Committee in February 2014, before
its submission to the twenty-sixth session of the Council (June 2014). The resolution also requests the
Committee, in its preparation of the report, to seek views and inputs from different stakeholders, such
as Member States, international and regional organizations working in post-disaster and post-conflict
situations and civil society representatives. The drafting group therefore elaborated the hereunder
questionnaire for National Human Rights Institutions.
Part I: General
1. Has your country faced a situation of disaster or conflict? If yes, please indicate below which one
or both and kindly proceed to answer the following questions.
Disaster
Conflict
1
A/HRC/AC/9/1, 10 August 2012.
2
A/HRC/AC/11/L.1, 16 August 2013.
Part II: Post-disaster situations
1. Do you have a specialized mechanism to verify/monitor human rights protection and promotion
during disasters? And during post-disaster actions?
Although there is no specific mechanism to monitor human rights protection and promotion in times
of disaster in New Zealand, the Human Rights Commission’s statutory mandate is broad enough to
cover the role.
In 2010 and 2011 a series of earthquakes struck the Canterbury region in the South Island of New
Zealand. The effect of the earthquakes was of a level to qualify as a natural disaster as defined by the
United Nations. The Commission has been significantly involved in a variety of human rights issues
that arose as a result of the disaster. A report by the Commission, Monitoring Human Rights in the
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, which outlines the human rights issues and how they have been
addressed, is currently being finalised and will be forwarded to the Human Rights Council on
completion to supplement this response.
2. Which human rights do you focus on?
The Commission has focused principally on the right to housing and the right to health, referencing
rights in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. The right to participate in decision making and to be
informed about decisions that impact on the people affected have also been a major issue.
One result of the widespread destruction was that the right to property - and adequate compensation has been foremost in many people’s thinking. Although there is no specific right to property as such in
New Zealand law, a High Court decision in which some residents in the affected area challenged the
Government’s classification and consequent compensation for loss of their property3refers to Article
17of ICESCR - “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation” – noting that
the use and enjoyment of one’s home was a fundamental human right.
The Commission has also been actively involved in advocating for a rebuilt city that is fully accessible
to people with disabilities. Consistent with the approach promoted in the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, the Commission has also recommended that people with disabilities are
involved in the development and planning of what could be a truly barrier free city.
3. Which human rights do you find that the Government focuses on? Which rights would you
recommend the Government to focus on more?
The Government has recognised the importance of human rights in the earthquake recovery and acted
promptly to address the needs of those living in the affected areas. After the first earthquake, it
introduced the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010, enabling legislation to be
altered to facilitate the reconstruction of Christchurch. The Act included a sunset clause which would
have caused it to expire on 1 April 2012.
3
The Commission intervened in the case in order to raise the relevant human rights issues. The recognition of
the right to a home was a direct consequence of this involvement.
2
Following the earthquake in the following year and recognising that the recovery process would take
more than five years, the Government passed the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CERA
Act). The CERA Act sets out the functions and powers of the Minister and created a new Authority the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) - to ensure a coordinated recovery effort and
provides for community input into decision making. It allows the Government to alter laws by making
Orders in Council (with some checks and balances). It also provides some rights of appeal in certain
limited situations where independent legal scrutiny is desirable – for example, compulsory acquisition
of land or decisions on resource consents.
However, while the Government has taken steps to deal with issues such as access to employment and
education and the replacement of destroyed infrastructure, the more intractable difficulties relate to
housing and property ownership. The most contentious involve:
 zoning decisions and the ability to participate in how those decisions are arrived at
 insurance matters
 the destruction of low income housing and the impact on vulnerable people
The Commission has suggested that in the event of a future disaster, the Government needs to ensure
that there is adequate housing for people in need – particularly the most vulnerable – and develops a
national housing plan to do so subject to a cross party accord. The details are laid out in the
monitoring report but essentially require a housing strategy that complies with the right to housing
laid out in the international instruments. Namely, housing must be affordable, habitable and
accessible. The Commission has also recommended that government agencies involved in post
recovery responses should ensure that those affected are genuinely able to participate in
reconstruction efforts and that the views of people with disabilities are taken into account and that
large scale businesses involved in the recovery efforts should implement the framework set out the UN
Guiding Principles on Human Rights and Business (‘the Ruggie Principles’).
4. Are you involved in capacity-building for the Government on a human rights-based approach to
relief, recovery, reconstruction and rehabilitation after a disaster?
The Commission joined with a number of organisations to monitor the effect of the earthquakes. As
part of the group’s recommendations it has been suggested that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery
Authority, the Christchurch City Council and other central government departments involved in the
earthquake recovery seek advice from the Human Rights Commission to ensure they adopt a human
rights approach to any major initiatives in relation to natural disasters.
The CESCR Committee reporting on New Zealand’s performance on the ICESCR recommended that
New Zealand adopt a human rights approach to reconstruction efforts, ensuring thereby appropriate
consideration to availability, affordability and adequacy of housing, including for temporary housing.
In this regard, the Committee refers the State party to its general comment No. 4 (1991) on the right
to adequate housing. The Committee also encouraged the State party to seize the opportunity of the
reconstruction efforts to apply designs which enable persons with disabilities’ access on an equal
basis with others to the physical environment, facilities and services provided to the public .
5. Have you noticed any discrimination or neglect in provision of services, relief, etc.? Are there
protections/standards in place by the Government to ensure non-discrimination and the respect of the
humanitarian principals of neutrality, independence, impartiality and humanity in provision of
services, relief, etc.?
3
The Commission - as the agency charged with dealing with unlawful discrimination - did not receive
complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of services that could be said to amount to
unlawful discrimination but there were examples of systemic issues that may arguably have amounted
to indirect discrimination. For example, some of the challenges faced by people from diverse cultural
and linguistic communities in relation to communication and participation might be described as
indirect discrimination. There were also complaints relating to insurance although, again, these could
not be said to be directly attributed to discriminatory policies. (The Insurance and Savings
Ombudsman also can deal with certain issues relating to personal insurance and savings products).
In relation to standards in place to ensure non-discriminatory provision of services, the Human
Rights Commission has a broad statutory remit that allows people to seek redress if they feel that
their human rights are infringed. Anyone can make a complaint to the Commission about a human
rights issue or alleged breach of human rights by another person, business or state agency. There is
also provision for wider inquiries and a general advocacy function which the Commission has used to
promote the needs of vulnerable groups and people with disabilities.
Other agencies that provide an avenue for redress include the Office of the Ombudsman, which can
deal with complaints about the way in which services are provided by administrative bodies and
access to official information, and the Office of the Health and Disability Services Commissioner
which deals with complaints about the provision of health services.
6. What are the biggest challenges you notice that the Government faces?
As the silos that Governments operate in can be exacerbated in a disaster recovery, the biggest
challenge that the government faces is ensuring genuine consultation with affected people in a way
that enables them to rebuild their mental wellbeing. This will be explained further in the report we
will publish shortly and forward as part of our answer to this questionnaire.
7. What are the biggest challenges that your organization faces?
The Commission has attempted for some years now to promote the universal adoption of a human
rights approach to the development of policy and practice in the public sector. This has had limited
success. However it is possible that the Commission’s work in Canterbury may act as an impetus for
future and better compliance with human rights.
Part III: Post-conflict situations
1. Do you have a specialized mechanism to verify/monitor human rights protection and promotion
during armed conflict? In post-conflict stages?
2. Which human rights do you focus on?
3. Which human rights do you find that the Government focuses on? Which rights would you
recommend the Government to focus on more?
4
4. Are you involved in capacity-building for the Government on a human rights-based approach to
relief, recovery, reconstruction and rehabilitation after a conflict?
5. Are you involved in capacity-building for the Government on a human rights-based approach in
post-conflict stages, including peace building, transitional justice?
6. In these capacity-building exercises, do you include the humanitarian principles of humanity,
impartiality and independence?
7. Have you noticed any discrimination or neglect in provision of services, relief, etc.? Are there
protections/standards in place by the Government to ensure non-discrimination and the respect of the
humanitarian principals of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence in provision of
services, relief, etc.?
8. What are the biggest challenges you notice that the Government faces?
9. What are the biggest challenges that your organization faces?
Deadline for submission of responses to the questionnaire:
In order to give the Drafting Group the opportunity to take into account the different contributions, all
parties are encouraged to submit their responses as soon as possible and at the latest by 8 November
2013.
Answers can be submitted via email to the following address:
hrcadvisorycommittee@ohchr.org
OR
Secretariat of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee
c/o Ms. Dina Rossbacher
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson, Room 4-065, Fax: +41 22 917 9011
United Nations Office at Geneva,
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
5
Thank you for your contribution.
For more information on the Advisory’s mandate:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/AdvisoryCommittee/Pages/HRCACIndex.aspx
6